Over at the Climate Science blog, Roger Pielke explains how his answer to the Hansen et al 2005 paper was rejected by Science (the magazine). The issue itself it interesting (the paper was rejected on the basis that it was not really a critique, even if adding missing information can be valuable too), however I really enjoyed taking a look at the two reviews that prompted the rejection. The first one is pretty good, and really gives arguments about why the paper should not be published, however the second one falls a little short on that respect:

None of the participants in this pathetic exchange seem to have the slightest clue about the large decadal noise that exists in the oceans and some ocean models. If they did they would not make the comments and calculations they do.

I would think Science would expect slightly better arguments. I guess the reviewer was famous or something.
On the other hand, I’m not saying the paper should have been published – that’s what reviews are for. Getting rejected does not feel good, but I don’t think you should complain about it.
The whole issue is also commented on here.